The problem is that we dont know what "defeat" means. In other words, defeating ISIS is just a matter of leaving them with no territory? I think that the big challenge is to figure out how to combat their ideology and manipulation of islam. For that, in my opinion, you need way more resources thatn just "hard power".

Furthermore, I am not that sure that Iran would support Hamas because, as you may know, Hamas is a sunni group while Hezbollah is shia. In other words, traditional and historical rivalries inside islam do take place in the Syrian and Middle East conflict.

Neocons are no longer in power but their plans that Obama Administration didn't or couldn't change for the region are still at work. Thus, U.S. and allies especially Israel, Saudi and Turkey aren't sincere about defeating ISIS, which was created, helped and armed by. Israel spills the secret that everyone knows ISIS is useful. Despite the fact that telling truth doesn't please everyone and Surely, Mr. Sachs knows that and does it nevertheless.

But this is a terrible idea - Israel KNOWS why Asad and Iran are even worse choice than ISIS both generally and specifically for Israel. To say it simply, an influential, nuclear-capable Iran allied with Russia is a global politics' nightmare and that is what this change of course would usher in. And specifically for Israel, having Hezbollah concentrate on its war in Syria frees their northern border while they struggle to cope with Hamas. And the author must know (should know if he decides to comment on this topic) that both Hamas and West Bank Palestinians are 100% determined to keep ISIS out of their territories by any uncivilised means necessary.

Jeffrey Sachs states "ISIS is not especially hard to beat" and offers his suggestions which are totally lacking in meaningful detail, reflect no knowledge of current developments in the region, and reflect an extraordinary arrogance towards serious attempts to address the difficult problems in the region.
I am aware of no hostilities directed by the US towards the Assad government. The US has, however, provided support to selected groups fighting the regime. It is possible if Assad had chosen to negotiate with some of the opposition in 2011, when there were only peaceful demonstrations that the war could have been avoided. The brutal repression of the opposition led to radicalization, significant desertion from the Syrian army and a war that has claimed about 500,000 people in Syria.
In 2012 President Obama did threaten American action when the Assad regime used chemical weapons against civilians. President Putin responded that this was unlikely, but that Russia would investigate and would view it as a serious matter if true. Within days Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons. It appears that Russia determined that the regime had indeed used chemical weapons and insisted that Syria remove the weapons. With the decision to remove the weapons the US chose not to act. More recently, the US and Russia agreed to work with the parties to the conflict in Syria to facilitate political resolution of the conflict starting with a ceasefire and humanitarian access to areas under siege. The US job was to attempt to get the opposition representatives to the negotiating table and Russia accepted the job of getting Assad representatives to the negotiating table. The process has been beset with many difficulties. Basically, the sides don't want to negotiate. Assad has stated his intent on several occasions to achieve military victory, to reconquer every centimeter of Syria. Russia clearly sees a military victory is not feasible. Vitaly Churkin, Russia's UN envoy even referred to the idea of a military solution by Assad as nonsense several months ago.
ISIS emerged in Iraq and seized primarily lightly populated areas of Syria near the Iraq border. ISIS has largely not threatened the Syrian heartland. The regime has concentrated its forces against its opposition and not against ISIS.
ISIS has been rolled back in Iraq to nearly 50% of its maximum territory. The fight continues, but ISIS is changing its strategy and going global. Unlike Sachs, most experts do not expect ISIS to be easily defeated. This article points to no solution to defeat ISIS. Where Sach's expertise could possibly help is to get Assad to negotiate with the opposition, to work towards political resolution of the civil war.

Bravo! Comprehensive, cogent and lucid analysis and suggestions. In retrospect a fundamental error was to pursue regime change with military means (incl. covert). China knows better: let each country evolve according to its own dynamic. But as long as it is a common view in the US that every nation should be "helped" to become like the US, I see little hope of improvement. And in Europe we are now confronted with masses of refugees - and some terrorists - from the countries destroyed by foreign military intervention. (Having served as a legal adviser for the UN for 25 years+, I can't analyse it otherwise).

Surprising position from Sachs. He certainly has his position as perceived by me. I am not sure anyone in the establishment is listening to him anymore. Hope the media will pick up his position and get us out of Middle East mess.

I fully agree with Prof. Sachs. I even proposed to President Obama the same idea of withdrawing "Assad must go" and allying with Russia and Iran to destroy ISIS in 2014. Following was the letter.

Smart people also make mistake. They just correct sooner.
Bob Chang
35 Iroquois Drive Southwick, MA 01077
September 7, 2014

Dear President:
Looking back, U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century was one mistake after another. When President W. Bush invaded Iraq, protesters’ slogan was, “No Blood for Oil”. Now we spilled thousands of American blood and hundred times more blood from Iraqis and didn’t get a drop of oil. Instead, we found oil in the continent of North America. We hanged Saddam, we ordered “Mubarak must go”, “Gaddafi must go”, “Assad must go”. See what happened: In Egypt, after our failed support to Morsi, Mubarak reincarnated in Sisi, who is less friendly to us than Mubarak; in Libya, our ambassador got killed, the country is now in turmoil; in Syria, millions of people became refugees and the West are facing the greatest threat from IS. I don’t think this would happen if we left Assad alone then. I hope Hillary would have the courage to come out and withdraw her statement “Assad must go”.
In the mid-1930’s the Chinese Nationalist government made five expeditions to eliminate the communist forces. But when Japanese invaded China in 1937, the Nationalist and communist formed a united front to fight Japanese invaders. In order to fight IS, we need a united front including Assad and the other Arab countries. This diplomacy may also extend to Iran and Russia.
The West should not and can not export our own value to the rest of the world, such as democracy, freedom and free election, sometimes even with force. For people in developing countries, their priority is better life and security. They have to get democracy on their own. China is a good example. Chinese people tolerate a totalitarian regime as long as their living standard is improving. Our intentions are noble but history proved that we cannot change the world by policing. As I mentioned in my letter to you in 2009 (see attached), I prefer using Peace Corps rather than army corps.
Respectfully,
Bob Chang, 79, U.S. Citizen

This is very insightful, but what motivation does Saudi Arabia have for defeating ISIS who promote the Wahhabist Islamic ideology which they are very keen to spread? Additionally, US foreign policy will be heavily constrained by Isreali and Republican opposition to any rapprochement with Iran or Russia. This is a very complex problem which calls for creative ideas along the lines that you have suggested

Dear Sir
Same as most other phenomena ISIL was created or wrongly supported by USA . Ms Hillary had visited 120 countries ( as her confess in her book ) to collect support for ISIL once it raised flag and declared existence. But by chance or mistake ISIL revealed its true nature by beheading those three Americans which after third American was beheaded USA pretended to take action against ISIL. ((( It means Hilary repeated the same mistake 120 times , and it took USA government 3 additional month to realize their mistake !!!! ))

In my opinion ISIL will exist as long as UN is depended on donations of Governments . we as ordinary people , if want to get rid of ISIL , shall make UN independent. Then we can bring peace to all . More than 25% of ISIL members are from Europe & USA and they were born from human beings ( Their parents ) and I am sure they are tired of killing and being killed . They want peace as well. But some dirty politicians wanted to manipulate their anger and that is why they created ISIL by intention . But could nit control it afterwards.

Ask yourself this question why some good portion of Syrian people still support Bashar Assad?? you never addressed this case in your article . Do you think that they are employees of Iran ? or Russia? .

Why USA / others do not dare to criticize KSA over its support for establishment of Vahabee`s Religious schools round the globe which train extremists?

To bring peace and prosperity for all nations , we shall make UN an independent organization . it shall be relocated to a isolated Island . away from visa regulation of USA or other countries and from there wold be governed equally.

God /Allah , has created people equally . All people are created from a bad smelling water coming from their fathers back bone transformed to blood and finally to meat/bone and skin in their mothers abdomen. man kind has nothing to say against God. There is enough energy , wealth , food , prosperity , for all , to consume till their death. But problem arisewhen some people , some politicians , some nations thinks otherwise and try grasp every opportunity and take over/own all treasure of earth / globe.

So we need an independent United Nation organization to provide equally opportunity for all .

I ask you one question . Compare ISIL with Palestine .
We assume that ISIL is mysterious group and world leaders do not know its full details / dimensions and that is why they can not solve it but why problem of Palestine is not solved yet ?? Number of Palestine population is known , their land is known , their religion is know ..

Conclusion : We as ordinary people shall make UN independent in order to eliminate ISIL and similar groups and control / manage politicians.

It appears that Mr. Sachs is as tone deaf as Fareek Zakaria was in his recent report entitled ¨why they hate us¨. While I don´t disagree with either author´s thesis, I find both wanting in not providing one word on how the US Israeli relationship has poisoned Muslim attitudes for decades. This is an ever more costly blind spot to maintain in the face of escalating violence in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Being shaken by the "murderous reach" of recent terrorist attacks, which apportioned blame to the Islamic State, Jeffrey D. Sachs seeks to give his take on fighting ISIS. His commentary is long on words and short on sustainable advice. He believes, "the longer ISIS maintains its strongholds in Syria and Iraq, the longer its terrorist network will create such carnage." He says it's time to eradicate ISIS, which is "not especially difficult to defeat." But he sees an unwillingness of "the states involved in Iraq and Syria, including the United States and its allies" to treat ISIS "as its primary foe."
It is true that in terms of military capabilities, ISIS doesn't have a standing army like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, hence its strength is rather "miniscule" with a ragtag bunch of foreign recruits. For this reason it is deeply engaged in classic asymmetric warfare - terrorist attacks on civilians and soft targets. The IS has exploited the schism that fuels the feud between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia to stoke sectarian violence, selling itself as the defender of Sunni Islam.
It's wishful thinking that peace returns to the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is keen on keeping Iran's influence at bay, and turns a blind eye to its citizens supporting various Islamist groups that fight the Assad regime in Syira, backed by Tehran. It's unclear whether the recent bombing in Saudi Arabia's second holiest site, Medina will change its policies, even though the chickens have come home to roost. Turkey has been clamouring for Assad's ouster, but it sees the Kurds as a bigger threat to its territorial integrity than ISIS, as they seek to achieve statehood. The Syrian rebels are more keen on toppling Assad, than fighting ISIS. Israel also "prioritizes the removal of Assad over the defeat of ISIS," because it fears to be "left with a Hezbollah and Iran that have greater capabilities.”
No doubt, the neocons under GW Bush is to blame for the Iraq war. The toppling of Saddam Hussein ushered in a Shia-led government that had marginalised Sunni officers, who later helped ISIS rise to power. But Sachs is not entirely right about "the multiple US wars in the Middle East – Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and others" aiming "to remove the Soviet Union, and then Russia, from the scene and to give the US hegemonic sway." Does Russia have a big footprint in Iraq and Libya? The proxy war fought in Syria and Yemen between Iran/Russia and Saudi Arabia/the US does remind of tensions in the Cold War era.
Sachs says: "Russia and Iran, too, have pursued their own regional interests....Yet both have signaled their readiness to cooperate with the US to defeat ISIS, and perhaps to solve other problems as well. The US has so far spurned these offers, because of its focus on toppling Assad." How true is it? The US is more keen on fighting ISIS, than removing Assad. He also lays out "three strategic flaws in US foreign policy, along with a fatal tactical flaw" - the "imperial overreach" and the "neocon quest for US hegemony through regime change;" CIA's arming and training of Sunni Islamists funded by Saudi Arabia; "the US perception of Iran and Russia as implacable foes of America." As a result the US has failed in fighting "a two-front war against both Assad and ISIS" in Syria.
It is true that when Assad was "weakened," Islamists - ISIS and al-Nusra Front "filled the vacuum." Sachs has failed to mention that Assad, emboldened by Iran/Russian support, is no longer keen on negotiating with the opposition. He has vowed to retake "every inch of" his country, by letting ISIS wipe out the US/Saudi-backed rebels, before he takes on the IS.
Sachs sees in fighting ISIS an opportunity for the US to reach out to Iran and Russia, and for Saudi Arabia and Turkey "to find a new modus vivendi with Iran." He urges the US to accept whatever outcome: "Yes, Assad would remain in power; yes, Russia would retain an ally in Syria; and yes, Iran would have influence there." He insists on denying ISIS "its base of operations" in Iraq and Syria, even if it wouldn't put an end to terrorist attacks.
He sees that weakening ISIS "could lay the groundwork for reducing regional tensions more generally. The US and Russia could begin to reverse their recent new cold war through shared efforts to stamp out jihadist terrorism. (A pledge that NATO will not offer admission to Ukraine or escalate missile defenses in Eastern Europe would also help.)" Sachs is an idealist.
His idealism is beyond belief: "Israel’s security could be enhanced by bringing Iran into a cooperative economic and geopolitical relationship with the West, in turn enhancing the chances for a long-overdue two-state settlement with Palestine." The ISIS phenomenon has much "the shortcomings of current Western – particularly US – strategy" to thank for. "The West can defeat ISIS. The question is whether the US will undertake the strategic reassessment needed to accomplish that end." In the past Sachs accused the US of meddling, but now he urges the US to be more engaged - by cooperating with Iran and Russia, and bringing Saudi Arabia and Iran closer together. My question is, are they willing and ready to make things happen?

Dear Sir
ISIL. Will not be eleminated as Ms Hillary Clinton had visited 120 countries to collect support for ISIL when it would raise flag . She repeated the same mistake 120 times . Unbelievable!!!!
But then ISIL. Made mistake by beheading those three poor Americans . As long as our politicians work on try and error principal , and never learn from their mistake , or learn finally but at too late a time , ISIL will persist ,

USA. Still dose not know how to convince KSA not to
Establish more and more religious schools which are teaching extremists . Or UN is acting as an employee and carrying out instruction from those countries which donate more in some way and kill similar people in other way .

Solution : We have to find a way to make UN independent from any and all countries , then a globally accepted policy can be worked out to eleminate ISIL.
and other problems . ISIL members are human beings and they have their own parents and are not made in factories . More than 20% of their members are from Eutope and America . They are tired of killing and to be killed but as long as UN remains dependent , their own problems will exist which will force them to continue .
So make UN independent first then we can find a way to bring peace to all nations .

Throughout history in all religions, attempts were made to eliminate or eradicate religious beliefs and religious groups. It is the equivalent of smashing your fist into a bucket of water, which causes the water to splash and dissipate and then return when the fist is removed.

The American war in Afghanistan has killed thousands of Taliban fighters and leaders, but other take their place. The same is true in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and many other Muslim countries. All too often, these terrorist groups get larger and stronger and expand into international terrorism.

And who do we have to blame?

It is unbelievable that the US and other nations have been fighting in Afghanistan for more than 14 years with thousands of highly trained troops and the world's most modern military equipment. What has changed. Like Vietnam, when America finally leaves, which it will, having lost untold thousands of American sons and daughters, and billions of dollars in military expenditures, nothing will have changed. Afghanistan was Russia's Vietnam and will become America's second Vietnam.

Where were these political and military leaders, when they were handing out intelligence and common sense.???

On the same line of argument, would also be part of Cheney’s plan the CIA ties with Bin Laden, when it armed Mujahideens against the Soviet Union. Finally, it could be said that this policy would be causing the dismembering of the European Union, unable to manage the huge wave of emigrants from Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen, victims of war violence.
What seems evident is that the support of a super power to any party of the Shia-Sunni confrontation immediately provokes rage on the opposite party; from there, terrorist reactions seem a natural consequence.
Within the efforts for reducing regional tensions, all external parties should consider that this confrontation is more political than religious, however difficult to understand. A good simile is the Thirty Years' War in Europe that, starting in the fragmented Holy Roman Empire, became a continuation of the France–Habsburg rivalry, which led to direct war between France and Spain.
Maybe Cheney’s strategy lacked of a long term and global view, but would Herr Bismarck, Monsieur Clemenceau or Mr. Churchill have done it better?

ISIS does not only consist of the officially enlisted 20,000 to 25,000 in Iraq and Syria but of the 10,000s of sympathizers that are willing to resort to their abominable actions. Pandorra's box is open and I doubt that defeating them in Iraq and Syria will eliminate the spirit they embody. It is like the same mirage we had when we fought the Taliban.

Professor Sachs, thank you for a great and May I say a matter of act read. US foreign policy fluctuates more than the US stock exchange. The fact is that every despotic regime has US’s blessings or a hand in its creation. You are right when you say “the neocon quest for US hegemony through regime change is not only bloody-minded arrogance; it is classic imperial overreach” plus it is illegal, and plain treading on the rights of foreign sovereign lands to choose how they should be governed. It irks me when I hear leaders like the dodo Tony Blair say that while he regrets the Iraq invasion but glad that Saddam is out. Saddam may have been a devil but he was one, their devil and two knew the tribal make-up and loyalties. Who knows how long Iraq will continue to burn? Taking Assad out will have the same fateful end and the US will ignite a series of endless violence. Let things be!

A thoughtful article.
Unfortunately, the cynical ambitions that have shaped American policy in the Middle East/Persian Gulf have proven to be destructive for the region and self-defeating for the USA.
The question that has emerged is whether the USA has the intellectual wherewithal to rethink its posture and commitments in a region where it has consistently failed stem the forces of change and instability by the way of arms transfers and the deployment of American forces.
Since the Reagan administration, American policy has consistently veered between farce and tragedy in pursuit of the goal of an elusive Pax Americana.
Serious change will only occur when there is intelligent diplomacy at work - as in the negotiations with Iran through the P5+1 process.

It is simply a Middle East civil war at work. Leave it alone and will sort itself out. Get involved and some American cite sin sympathetic to their cause will buy an assault rifle and more people will die locally. You cannot stop this type of threat with force of arms, as history since 2001 teaches us.

The West cannot defeat ISIS unti the ME defeats ISIS. Your argument is unsound because as you note parties in the ME want it to continue.

Stop blaming the west for basic instabilities in the ME. You can bame the West for getting engaged or not getting engaged enough in your view, but the basic problem is instabilities in the ME. Sadam was barbaric and what followed was barbaric but the area is barbaric. Excecutions are routine https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jan/04/executions-in-saudi-arabia-iran-numbers-china

Your problem is you believe in the numerical superiority of the West can force peace. I suggest you take a look at Afghanistan and tell me when foreign forces won in Afghanistan longterm.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.